MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3189071847 · doi:10.1159/000516517

Does Endometriosis Disturb Mental Health and Quality of Life? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021· review· en· W3189071847 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueGynecologic and Obstetric Investigation · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEndometriosis Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeta-analysisFunnel plotMedicineMental healthPublication biasSubgroup analysisStrictly standardized mean differenceCochrane LibraryAnxietyOdds ratioDepression (economics)Quality of life (healthcare)EndometriosisInternal medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to evaluate whether endometriosis could disturb the mental health and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of patients and to provide a new prospective for further treatment of endometriosis. METHODS: A comprehensive literature review was conducted among 4 international databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library) and 2 of the largest Chinese databases (the China National Knowledge Infrastructure and Wangfang). The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess the quality of the included articles. Six effect sizes were synthesized through a meta-analysis, and a subgroup analysis was performed to identify potential moderating factors, including types of control groups, methods of assessment, number of study groups, and origin of the study. Potential publication bias was examined using a funnel plot. RESULTS: This meta-analysis pooled 44 articles from 4 continents and 13 countries and compared 6 types of main effect sizes (the odds ratio [OR] for depression, the OR for anxiety, the standardized mean difference [SMD] for depression, the SMD for anxiety, the SMD for the physical component summary [PCS] and the SMD for the mental component summary [MCS]) between endometriosis patients and controls. Except for the SMD for depression, all other effect sizes revealed statistically significant differences between the study group and the controls. The main effect size outcomes of the subgroup analysis were also similar. The type of control group (I2 = 35% in non-endometriosis control groups for the SMD of anxiety; I2 = 47% in non-endometriosis control groups for the MCS of the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey) and the continent of origin (I2 = 0% in studies from South America for the OR of depression; I2 = 47% in studies from Europe for the SMD of anxiety) may influence heterogeneity in this analysis. Additionally, depression and anxiety symptoms in patients seemed to be more apparent compared with healthy controls when the sample was smaller and when a questionnaire was used. The publication bias of the articles was acceptable. CONCLUSION: Endometriosis can disturb mental health (specifically depression and anxiety) and decrease both the mental and physical HRQoL of patients. There may be some moderating factors that we were unable to identify in the subgroup analysis, but more research is necessary to develop proper management and improve the prognosis of endometriosis patients.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.054
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.880
Threshold uncertainty score0.954

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.054
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.168
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.228 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it